>blockbuster films routinely receive metacritic scores in

Most people who play video games are still in school, where 59 is a failure and 70s are okay.

>>378576413
Someone mercykill that poor franchise already

>>378576413
Because we've come to the point where 7-10s were given out so much, handing out a 5 to something won't sit well with a lot of people. You can't just bloat the numbers for years and then suddenly try to be accurate, everyone is already accustomed to the bloated numbers.

>>378576913
What is this one ever about? I think the last one was about mermaid treasure or something?

>>378576913
It's all been downhill since the first one, but I liked it so much that it's hard to let go

It very much feels like that video game series you love being driven into the ground by a publisher who had no idea what originally made it good

File: Capture.png (450KB, 592x615px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 592x615px

>6.6

>This is considered "Average"
No it is not. Quit misinforming people. The average movie review score on Metacritic is 69. The average game review score on metacritic is 76

http://www.metacritic.com/publication/total-film
http://www.metacritic.com/publication/total-video-games

>>378576413
Price and longevity. A movie is meant to be about 2 hours long for about around 10 dollars. So even a bomb isnt so bad fromt he consumers point of view.

A game however is usually 60 dollars and is expected to fill quite a ot of time. If it bombs, i.e. isnt fun, is broken, etc, the consumer feels cheated far more.

Easy:

Movie reviews are critiques of art work
Video game reviews are advertisements for toys

>>378576413
Movie reviewers' jobs aren't jeopardized by not being at early screenings the way game critics' have their jobs jeopardized by not getting review copies. Games take more time to do this shit. Why do you think reviewers love movie games? They give them quick fixes that simplistically make them feel like they understand everything about the game, the reviews are handed to them on a silver platter.

>>378577886
In fact. For metacritic at least, they admit in their satistics that their reviewers review most movies 4.2 points Higher than average critics elsewhere on the internet and are more often to give a movie a good review (60%) as opposed to a bad one (36%) That game reviews on metacritic which are more likely to get LOWER reviews(51%) on metacritic than they are higher (45%), and that on average metacritic reviewrs only rate 1.8 points higher than other publications.

So you're quite literally as wrong as possible in your stupid ass point that video-game reviews are more highly bloated than movie reviews on metacritic. MEASURABLY and OBJECTIVELY wrong by their own statistics.

What was the cancelled game called again?

Armada of the Dead?

>>378578646
What the fuck are you talking about? User reviews vs critic reviews? You're basically making my point for me. Of course user reviews for games are almost always lower than critic reviews, because critics are being paid to advertise games and user reviews aren't. They're more likely to rate on a 0-10 scale instead of the 7-10 skewed marketing scale, where the difference between a 9.2 and 9.3 is how many G's were shelled out.

And yeah, it's not surprising that user reviews are typically higher for movies because movie critics are actually HARD on the movies they watch, and do what they're SUPPOSED to do: criticize. Movie critics would tear the fuck out of a game like BotW which has TONS of flaws, and yet game reviewers gave it almost unanimously perfect scores. Not because the game is perfect by any means, but because they were paid that much more to make the game stand out in terms of advertising.

Video game """"journalism"""""" is a fucking joke. It's glorified advertising, and there's no ethics involved. We're still in our infancy, and this is why video games can't be art. Until you call bullshit on a 7-10 scale, and demand journalistic integrity, your medium is nothing more than child's toy that's being advertised

>>378578214
As much as it hurts to admit this, it's true. This medium is still in its infancy. I only hope I'll live long enough to witness video games being acknowledged as art.

>>378579825
>I only hope I'll live long enough to witness video games being acknowledged as art.
Who gives a shit about that.

>>378576413
your problem is metacritic.

Nobody knows how it works, not even metacritic.

>>378580273
Personally I just hate the dishonesty

Having your ability to get pre-release copies jeopardized by writing a bad review is called a conflict of interest. No respectable industry would allow this to happen, or at least take the reviews written by someone like that seriously

It just means no one cares. Advertisements are blatantly disguised as reviews and no one cares

>>378576670
And most people who make and rate games are long since out of school, where they use a more nuanced scale of grades than people in school who only use 0 and 10.

>>378578646
>>378579372
>one person gives numbers and statistics
>other goes on a decade-old /v/ rant
hmmm i wonder who is making a better case

>hurr durr 5 is average cuz it's between 0 and 10

Fuck off retard. Average is based on the scores, not the scale. And a 4/10 movie is universally seen as shit.

>>378576413
The fuck you talking about? A 40 is a terrible film. 70 and up is all that's worth watching.

>>378576413
Because movies are something you go to a theater, pay ten or so bucks, and watch for two hours. The kind of shit you passively consume along with a bucket of popcorn. Even if the movie sucked, the response to something with a 40% will be "eh" and probably some discussions about what was stupid about it.

Games are things you buy at a significant price most of the time, bring home and interact with. Anything short of "very good" will feel like shit in the hands of most players. They simply will not even care to play it to completion, let alone a quarter of the way through. A 4/10 game will end up on the used game shelf within the week.

File: 1488002446168.png (297KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 500x375px

Film critics are actually critics, game critics are paid off braindead retards.

>>378580958
He was talking about user review scores on metacritic, a subject which wasn't even brought up.

>>378581531
>>378581080

>4/10 movie is universally seen as shit
>40 is a terrible film

Tell that to DC fans

>>378581531
>>378577734

>>378581612
>A 4/10 game will end up on the used game shelf within the week.
Except that's exactly what happens with 7/10 games, proof that it's not that 4/10 games don't exist, simply that our scale is skewed to fucking hell to make it look like they don't.

>>378577483
Since the only logical way to rate a videogame is to see how it compares to videogames, any serious rating site should have all it's scores follow a normal distribution with a mean/median of 5/10. Given the large sample size.

>>378582652
Didn't mean to (you)
>>378577483
(you) brother. But enjoy it anyway.

>>378582652
Metacritic doesn't rate anything, though
It's just an aggregate site that combines all critic reviews and averages them

>>378576670

I don't think it has anything to do with them being in school but I do agree their scoring is based on it.

Although movie critics tend to be very pretentious, so they review movies very harshly to protect their ego.

Nerds and geeks are more like fanboys. As long as something caters to them it could be absolute shit and they are gonna be very lenient with the review.

If you wanna see how a movie critic would review games then read Tom Chick's reviews.

>>378583272
Yes. But it shouldn't list sites that don't follow such a simple rule. And so with a large enough sample size of sites average would be 5.

File: 1415043056638.png (3KB, 196x171px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 196x171px

Most people are willing to pay 15 bucks for a mediocre but flashy spectacle that's over in 2 hours

People are much less willing to pay 60 bucks for a mediocre but flashy spectacle that's over in 8+ hours

>>378576670
I don't know but if I get good only yhe half of what my job demands me I'm a failure, a 59 on a job evaluation is terrible.

If someone is underage here is you.

>>378585161
Review scores aren't pass/fail. They're an assessment of quality

50 shouldn't be seen as failing. It should be seen as average.

>>378579372
>Movie critics would tear the fuck out of a game like BotW which has TONS of flaws
hahaha no they fucking wouldn't

Even the best movie critics will ignore flaws if the overall package is extremely well-done. Basically every one of those "best movies ever" lists is full of movies with awkward cinematography, strange or lackluster plots, and odd direction choices. But they all move the genre forward and do something, some new thing, so very well that it's impossible to dismiss. Something that everybody else copies, that nobody else had seen before.

BotW isn't perfect, but that's why it doesn't have a perfect score. Its flaws are, in the long run, just not that important to the overall game. What it does well is far more important.